Wednesday, January 19, 2011

At around the same time that the Ontario Press Council ruled that David Warren had, among other things, “failed to meet generally accepted journalistic standards relating to attribution by either:

(a) using the words or assertions of another author or spokesperson without revealing that the words were not his own; and

(b) misusing the words or assertions of an unidentified author or spokesperson by failing to quote them fully and/or accurately”.

Warren wrote about an attack on the Syriac Catholic Church in Baghdad. It had occurred over a month earlier (October 31), and, contrary to his complaint of scant coverage, there were dozens of reports in major news outlets (Wikipedia’s entry on the tragedy lists almost 50 news sources).

Warren waited over a month to write about it. On December 7, the day before his article appeared, a commentary by Sandro Magister was published on Catholic websites. It included and introduced the translation of an article by Marco Pedersini from Il Foglio. Magister describes Pedersini’s story as “a reconstruction” or “dramatic account”, and indeed, though apparently based on fact, it is presented in a somewhat stylized, present-tense, docudrama style. The titles refer to works of fiction.

Rather than a commentary or report based on an aggregate of different fact sets reported a month earlier (which included a variety of details from witnesses), Warren’s Dec. 8 article contains similar editorial points, story details, and quotes, as the Magister/Pedersini publication, along with some overlapping wording. While Magister republishes and credits the Il Foglio story, Mr. Warren cites neither, although, in later reference to one detail, he mentions “Italian media” in passing.

Warren begins with similar editorializing about negligent media coverage indicating disregard for Christians that appears in Magister’s introduction, and in his conclusion echoes Magister’s observation about the “exodus” of Iraqi Christians to Kurdistan. Warren’s account of the attack parallels Pedersini’s narrative (without reference to any of the different fact sets in other reports), though in Warren’s version it is condensed. Warren's account is similar in style, outline, details, and uses the same quotes found in Pedersini’s narrative “reconstruction” – quotes that do not appear to be included in other reports. As well as paraphrasing, at times Warren’s words or phrasing are almost identical to the other authors.

Warren: … days, weeks, and sometimes years may be required, to reconstruct what actually happened…Many details are only now emerging…

Magister: … What happened…became known days later, little by little, thanks to the testimonies… (Here Magister cites the previous publication of Pedersini’s article, something Warren does not do) …the following is a reconstruction published one month later, on November 30, in the Italian newspaper "Il Foglio."

**

Warren: …the wounded who were flown out of Iraq to Rome, and other European cities...

Magister: … the wounded who were taken for treatment to Rome and other European cities.

**

Warren: … persistent and increasing attacks on Christians, as well as on other religious minorities, all over the Muslim world, this one was especially notable, and deserved far more sustained press coverage…

Magister: …the scarce interest that Western governments and public opinion are showing toward these anti-Christian attacks. If one then looks within the Muslim world, the indifference with which such acts are allowed free rein....

**

Warren: … automatic rifle fire, which began towards the end of the homily. Congregants were at first relieved that the attack did not seem to be directed at the church.

Pedersini: …about to finish the homily, when outside of the church a burst of automatic weapon fire breaks the silence. The priest tries to calm the faithful, the shots have to be aimed somewhere else…

**

Warren: It had begun with a diversionary strike against the Baghdad stock exchange:

Pedersini: …attack on the stock exchange… this was only a diversion.

**

Warren: A jeep parked outside the church then exploded…

Pedersini: …Jeep Cherokee parked in front of the church. The Jeep erupts…

**

Warren: …a brigade of jihadis, in Iraqi army uniforms, burst through the main entrance commando-style. First one priest -- a Father Wasim, among those trying to hold the door -- shouted, "Leave them alone, take me!" He was immediately shot. A Father Thair then shouted from the altar, likewise, "Leave them alone, take me!" and was likewise annihilated.

Pedersini: Fr. Wasim tries to hold the church's wooden door closed, but it is thrown backward by the brigade of armed men, who burst in… wearing the uniform of the Iraqi army... "Leave them alone, take me!" shouts Fr. Wasim, and is immediately hit with a bullet… "Leave them alone, take me!" Fr. Thair also shouts from the altar. He too is dispatched in an instant…

**

Warren: … a Father Raphael succeeded in herding about 70 of the faithful into the sacristy, and blocking its door. In due course the jihadis found it had a small high window, and tossed grenades through that; others amused themselves by firing bullets through the door.

Pedersini: Fr. Rafael succeeds in pushing about seventy of the faithful into the sacristy… before the terrorists throw themselves against the door. It holds, but the attackers find… a little window at the top… tossing a few hand grenades inside is a game for the young butchers... Others are hit by the bullets that come through the door.

**

Warren: …the jihadis used the central crucifix for target practice, while shouting in mockery, "Come on, tell Him to save you!"

Magister: …used the crucifix for target practice, and terrorized the children…

Warren: At their leisure… terrorizing the women and children in various other ways. They shot the arms off a couple of girls who tried to use cellphones; they shot babies who were crying.

Pedersini: The terrorists shoot anyone who pulls out a cell phone, as demonstrated by the wounds of two girls hit in the hand and arm when their phones started to ring… children who cry are killed instantly.

**

Warren: …in classical Arabic, with Egyptian and Syrian accents, they declared: "We are going to heaven, and you are going to hell. Allah is great!"

Pedersini: …the attackers did not speak Iraqi dialects, but the classical Arabic...Egyptians, and also a Syrian.

…shouting, "You will all go to hell, but we to paradise. Allah is most great."

**

Warren: At their leisure, for over the five hours they twice stopped for formal Islamic prayers.

Pedersini: …the terrorists seem strangely relaxed… they first permit themselves the maghrib, the afternoon prayer, and then the ishà, the evening prayer…

**

Warren: Iraqi military authorities had the church surrounded for most of this time; American-made helicopters buzzed overhead.

Pedersini: …the Iraqi army and the muffled droning of the American helicopters watching the situation from the air…

**

Warren: … place bombs around the cathedral, for the purpose of blowing it up at the end, but owing to faulty wiring these did not go off. Survivors, in the accounts I've seen in Italian media, say the jihadis eventually ran out of bullets, and then began calling for the bombs to be detonated.

Pedersini: …explosives, which were supposed to explode around the perimeter of the church, collapsing it… Why this did not happen is a secret… halfway through the attack, one of the terrorists called... "We're out of bullets, what should we do?" A quick order, with a sinister result: "Okay, now we'll start using the bombs."

**

Warren: They had several colleagues stationed on the roof, orchestrating their affair; unmolested by the troops surrounding the church…

Pedersini: …eight persons and at least one other who commanded the operations from the terrace around the roof of the church.

**

Warren: Two of the jihadis with suicide belts managed to blow themselves up.

Pedersini: they were determined to blow themselves up. Two of them succeeded…

**

Warren: …area hospitals where friends and relatives were already making their hysterical inquiries…

Pedersini: …relatives started to run frantically from one hospital to another…

**

Warren: …The church was now "secured," so that passersby could not get a view of the devastation…

Pedersini: Rubble… was cleaned up hastily the next day while the army blocked the entrance to the church so that no one could see the devastation.

**

Warren: The exodus of Christians from Iraq is, by now, more or less common knowledge. Within Iraq itself, there is a movement from such cities as Baghdad and Mosul… to safer territory in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Magister: Meanwhile, in Baghdad and in other places in Iraq the killing of Christians as such continues… the exodus of Christians from Baghdad and Mosul to the safer Kurdistan, in the extreme north of the country, continues.

In terms of Warren’s article as “reportage”, omissions are also notable: repeatedly characterizing the rescue as weak, Warren, a vocal advocate of the 2003 American invasion, omits mention of the American role noted in reports. For example, several quote “Lt. Col. Terry L. Conder, a spokesman for U.S. special forces”, on the scene of the rescue, who also described the attack as a “robbery gone wrong” (Associated Press). Other American military representatives are also cited, and “witnesses described American troops leading the assault” (UK Telegraph), or noted, “The hostages were caught in the crossfire between Iraqi and US security forces and the hostage takers”.

Warren omits material like this from other reports: “Syrian Catholic Archbishop Georges Basile Casmoussa of Mosul… told the Italian Catholic paper Avvenire that ‘most of the deaths were caused during the blitz by the Iraqi security forces led by the Americans... The head of the US bishops’ conference, Cardinal Francis George, said: ‘We share the Iraqi bishops’ concern that the US failed to help Iraqis’”.

And he omits relevant context found in many other reports: “Christians in Iraq, who numbered several hundred thousand before the 2003 invasion, became targets for attacks and kidnapping as violence worsened. As many as two-thirds may have left” (The Economist, Nov. 1, 2020).

Notwithstanding the usual bits of misleading information in David Warren’s article, “Tunisia holds its breath”, January 19, 2011, there is (yet another) clear factual error.

Warren writes:“The new "president for life" -- whether for minutes or decades -- is one of Ben Ali's flunkies, just as Ben Ali was one of Bourguiba's. Mohamed Ghannouchi is working on consolidating his power…”

The President of Tunisia who succeeded ousted President, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali is not Mohamed Ghannouchi.It is Fouad Mebazza.He was sworn in on January 15.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Steyn’s recent articlein the New Criterionis actually pretty old, and seems to again cut and paste chunks of previous columns from a variety of sources, including Maclean’s and the National Review.(Some links are via third sources and/or behind a pay wall).

New Criterion 2011:

“Just as we do not today differentiate between the Roman Republic and the imperial period of the Julio-Claudians when we think of the Roman Empire, so in the future no-one will bother to make a distinction between the British Empire–led and the American Republic–led periods of English-speaking dominance between the late-eighteenth and the twenty-first centuries. It will be recognized that in the majestic sweep of history they had so much in common—and enough that separated them from everyone else—that they ought to be regarded as a single historical entity, which only scholars and pedants will try to describe separately”.

If you step back for a moment, this seems obvious. There is a distinction between the “English-speaking peoples” and the rest of “the West,” and at key moments in human history that distinction has proved critical.Continental Europe has given us plenty of nice paintings and agreeable symphonies, French wine and Italian actresses and whatnot, but, for all our fetishization of multiculturalism, you can’t help noticing that when it comes to the notion of a political West—one with a sustained commitment to liberty and democracy—the historical record looks a lot more unicultural and, indeed (given that most of these liberal democracies other than America share the same head of state), uniregal. The entire political class of Portugal, Spain, and Greece spent their childhoods living under dictatorships. So did Jacques Chirac and Angela Merkel. We forget how rare on this earth is peaceful constitutional evolution, and rarer still outside the Anglosphere.

“Just as we do not today differentiate between the Roman Republic and the imperial period of the Julio-Claudians when we think of the Roman Empire, so in the future no-one will bother to make a distinction between the British Empire-led and the American Republic-led periods of English-speaking dominance between the late-eighteenth and the twenty-first centuries. It will be recognised that in the majestic sweep of history they had so much in common - and enough that separated them from everyone else - that they ought to be regarded as a single historical entity, which only scholars and pedants will try to describe separately”.

If you step back, this seems obvious… There is a distinction between the "English-speaking peoples" and the rest of "the west", and at key moments in human history that distinction has proved critical. Europe has given us plenty of nice paintings and agreeable symphonies, French wine and Italian actresses and whatnot, but, for all our fetishization of multiculturalism, you can't help noticing that when it comes to the notion of a political west - a sustained commitment to individual liberty - the historical record looks a lot more unicultural and indeed (given that three of the four nations on that cover share the same head of state) uniregal…The entire political class of Portugal, Spain and Greece spent their childhoods living under dictatorships. So did Jacques Chirac and Angela Merkel. We forget how rare in this world is sustained peaceful constitutional evolution.

New Criterion 2011:

Within a decade, the United States will be spending more of the federal budget on its interest payments than on its military.According to the cbo’s 2010 long-term budget outlook, by 2020 the U.S. government will be paying between 15 and 20 percent of its revenues in debt interest—whereas defense spending will be down to between 14 and 16 percent.

America will be spending more on debt interest than China, Britain, France, Russia, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, India, Italy, South Korea, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Spain, Turkey, and Israel spend on their militaries combined. The superpower will have advanced from a nation of aircraft carriers to a nation of debt carriers.

Within a decade, the United States will be spending more of the federal budget on its interest payments than on its military. You read that right: more on debt service than on the armed services. According to the CBO’s long-term budget outlook, by 2020 the government will be paying between 15 and 20 per cent of its revenues in debt interest. Whereas defense spending will be down to between 14 and 16 per cent. …

… America will be spending more on debt interest than China, Britain, France, Russia, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, India, Italy, South Korea, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Spain, Turkey and Israel spend on their militaries combined. The superpower will have evolved from a nation of aircraft carriers to a nation of debt carriers...

New Criterion, 2011:

What does that mean? In 2009, the United States spent about $665 billion on its military, the Chinese about $99 billion. If Beijing continues to buy American debt at the rate it has in recent years, then within a half-decade or so U.S. interest payments on that debt will be covering the entire cost of the Chinese military. This year, the Pentagon issued an alarming report to Congress on Beijing’s massive military build-up, including new missiles, upgraded bombers, and an aircraft-carrier R&D program intended to challenge American dominance in the Pacific. What the report didn’t mention is who’s paying for it. Answer: Mr. and Mrs. America.

Within the next five years, the People’s Liberation Army, which is the largest employer on the planet, bigger even than the U.S. Department of Community-Organizer Grant Applications, will be entirely funded by U.S. taxpayers. When they take Taiwan, suburban families in Connecticut and small businesses in Idaho will have paid for it.

What does that mean? In 2009, the US spent about $665 billion on its military, the Chinese about $99 billion. If Beijing continues to buy American debt at the rate it has in recent times, then within a few years US interest payments on that debt will be covering the entire cost of the Chinese military. This summer, the Pentagon issued an alarming report to Congress on Beijing’s massive military build-up, including new missiles, upgraded bombers, and an aircraft-carrier R&D program intended to challenge US dominance in the Pacific. What the report didn’t mention is who’s paying for it.Answer: Mr and Mrs America.

By 2015, the People’s Liberation Army, which is the largest employer on the planet, bigger even than the US Department of Community-Organizer Grant Applications, will be entirely funded by US taxpayers. When the Commies take Taiwan, suburban families in Connecticut and small businesses in Idaho will have paid for it.

New Criterion 2011:

…most of us aren’t quite sure when it took place. Andrew Roberts likes to pinpoint it to the middle of 1943: One month, the British had more men under arms than the Americans; the next month, the Americans had more men under arms than the British.

The baton of global leadership had been passed. And, if it didn’t seem that way at the time, that’s because it was as near a seamless transition as could be devised—although it was hardly “devised” at all, at least not by London. Yet we live with the benefits of that transition to this day. To take a minor but not inconsequential example, one of the critical links in the post-9/11 Afghan campaign was the British Indian Ocean Territory. As its name would suggest, it’s a British dependency, but it has a U.S. military base—just one of many pinpricks on the map where the Royal Navy’s Pax Britannica evolved into Washington’s Pax Americana with nary a thought: From U.S. naval bases in Bermuda to the Anzus alliance down under to Norad in Cheyenne Mountain, London’s military ties with its empire were assumed, effortlessly, by the United States…

If you’re not quite sure when that took place, the British historian Andrew Roberts likes to pinpoint it to the middle of 1943: One month, the British had more men under arms than the Americans. The next month, the Americans had more men under arms than the British.

The baton of global leadership had been passed. And, if it didn’t seem that way at the time, that’s because it was as near a seamless transition as could be devised — although it was hardly “devised” at all. Yet we live with the benefits of that transition to this day: To take a minor but not inconsequential example, one of the critical links in the Afghan campaign was the British Indian Ocean Territory. As its name would suggest, that’s a British dependency, but it has a U.S. military base — just one of many pinpricks on the map where the Royal Navy’s Pax Britannica evolved into Washington’s Pax Americana with nary a thought: From U.S. naval bases in Bermuda to the ANZUS alliance Down Under to NORAD close to home, London’s military ties with its empire were assumed by the United States.

New Criterion 2011:

…Obama moved in, he ordered Churchill’s bust be removed and returned to the British. Its present whereabouts are unclear. But, given what Sir Winston had to say about Islam in his book on the Sudanese campaign, the bust was almost certainly arrested at Heathrow and deported as a threat to public order.

President Obama has removed Winston Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office and returned it to the British. Given what Sir Winston had to say about Islam in his book on the Sudanese campaign, the bust will almost certainly be arrested at Heathrow and deported as a threat to public order.

New Criterion 2011:

from The Daily Telegraph:

“A leading college at Cambridge University has renamed its controversial colonial-themed Empire Ball after accusations that it was “distasteful.” The £136-a-head Emmanuel College ball was advertised as a celebration of “the Victorian commonwealth and all of its decadences.

Students were urged to “party like it’s 1899” and organisers promised a trip through the Indian Raj, Australia, the West Indies, and 19th century Hong Kong.But anti-fascist groups said the theme was “distasteful and insensitive” because of the British Empire’s historical association with slavery, repression and exploitation. The Empire Ball Committee, led by presidents Richard Hilton and Jenny Unwin, has announced the word “empire” will be removed from all promotional material”.

The way things are going in Britain, it would make more sense to remove the word “balls.”It’s interesting to learn that “anti-fascism” now means attacking the British Empire, which stood alone against fascism in that critical year between the fall of France and Germany’s invasion of Russia.

“A leading college at Cambridge University has renamed its controversial colonial-themed Empire Ball after accusations that it was “distasteful”. The £136-a-head Emmanuel College ball was advertised as a celebration of “the Victorian commonwealth and all of its decadences”.

Students were urged to “Party like it’s 1899″ and organisers promised a trip through the Indian Raj, Australia, the West Indies and 19th century Hong Kong.

But anti-fascist groups said the theme as “distasteful and insensitive” because of the British Empire’s historical association with slavery, repression and exploitation.

The ball Committee, led by presidents Richard Hilton and Jenny Unwin, has announced the word ‘Empire’ will be removed from all promotional material.”

The way things are going in Britain it would make more sense to drop the word “Balls”.

PS Interesting that “anti-fascism” now means attacking the British Empire, which stood alone against fascism in that critical year between the fall of France and Germany’s invasion of Russia.

New Criterion 2011:

… point out the most obvious fatuity in those “anti-fascist groups” litany of evil—“the British Empire’s association with slavery.” The British Empire’s principal association with slavery is that it abolished it. Before William Wilberforce, the British Parliament, and the brave men of the Royal Navy took up the issue, slavery was an institution regarded by all cultures around the planet as as permanent a feature of life as the earth and sky. Britain expunged it from most of the globe.

It is pathetic but unsurprising how ignorant all these brave “anti-fascists” are. But there is a lesson here not just for Britain but for the rest of us, too: When a society loses its memory, it descends inevitably into dementia. As I always try to tell my American neighbors, national decline is at least partly psychological—and therefore what matters is accepting the psychology of decline.

…I point out the most obvious fatuity in those “anti-fascist groups”‘ litany of evil - “the British Empire’s association with slavery”.

The British Empire’s principal association with slavery is that it abolished it. Thanks to William Wilberforce and the brave men of the Royal Navy, an institution that hitherto had been regarded by all cultures around the planet as as permanent a feature of life as the earth and sky was expunged from most of the globe.

It is pathetic but unsurprising how ignorant all these brave “anti-fascists” are. But there is a lesson here not just for Britain but for the rest of us, too: When a society loses its memory, it descends inevitably into dementia.

New Criterion 2011:

As I always try to tell my American neighbors, national decline is at least partly psychological—and therefore what matters is accepting the psychology of decline.

National Review, 2009:

But, more important, national decline is psychological — and therefore what matters is accepting the psychology of decline.

New Criterion 2011:

Hayek’s greatest insight in The Road to Serfdom, which he wrote with an immigrant’s eye on the Britain of 1944:

There is one aspect of the change in moral values brought about by the advance of collectivism which at the present time provides special food for thought. It is that the virtues which are held less and less in esteem and which consequently become rarer are precisely those on which the British people justly prided themselves and in which they were generally agreed to excel.

The virtues possessed by Anglo-Saxons in a higher degree than most other people, excepting only a few of the smaller nations, like the Swiss and the Dutch, were independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility, the successful reliance on voluntary activity, noninterference with one’s neighbor and tolerance of the different and queer, respect for custom and tradition, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority.

Within little more than half a century, almost every item on the list had been abandoned, from “independence and self-reliance” (some 40 percent of Britons receive state handouts) to “a healthy suspicion of power and authority”—the reflex response now to almost any passing inconvenience is to demand the government “do something.” American exceptionalism would have to be awfully exceptional to suffer a similar expansion of government without a similar descent, in enough of the citizenry, into chronic dependency.

Hayek’s greatest insight in The Road to Serfdom is psychological: “There is one aspect of the change in moral values brought about by the advance of collectivism which at the present time provides special food for thought,” he wrote with an immigrant’s eye on the Britain of 1944. “It is that the virtues which are held less and less in esteem and which consequently become rarer are precisely those on which the British people justly prided themselves and in which they were generally agreed to excel. The virtues possessed by Anglo-Saxons in a higher degree than most other people, excepting only a few of the smaller nations, like the Swiss and the Dutch, were independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility, the successful reliance on voluntary activity, noninterference with one’s neighbor and tolerance of the different and queer, respect for custom and tradition, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority.”

Two-thirds of a century on, almost every item on the list has been abandoned, from “independence and self-reliance” (40 percent of people receive state handouts) to “a healthy suspicion of power and authority” — the reflex response now to almost any passing inconvenience is to demand the government “do something,”.... American exceptionalism would have to be awfully exceptional to suffer a similar expansion of government and not witness, in enough of the populace, the same descent into dependency …

New Criterion 2011:

When William Beveridge laid out his blueprint for the modern British welfare state in 1942, his goal was the “abolition of want,” to be accomplished by “cooperation between the State and the individual.” In attempting to insulate the citizenry from the vicissitudes of fate, Sir William succeeded beyond his wildest dreams: Want has been all but abolished. Today, fewer and fewer Britons want to work, want to marry, want to raise children, want to lead a life of any purpose or dignity.

When William Beveridge laid out his blueprint for the modern British welfare state in 1942, his goal was the “abolition of want,” to be accomplished by “cooperation between the State and the individual.”In attempting to insulate the citizenry from the vicissitudes of fate, Sir William has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams: Want has been all but abolished. Today, fewer and fewer Britons and Europeans want to work, want to marry, want to raise children, want to lead a life of any purpose or dignity.

New Criterion 2011:

…look at what lbj’s Great Society did to the black family and imagine it applied to the general population.

Look at what the Great Society did to the black family and imagine it applied to the general population

New Criterion, 2011:

The statistics speak for themselves. The number of indictable offences per thousand people was 2.4 in 1900, climbed gradually to 9.7 in 1954, and then rocketed to 109.4 by 1992. And that official increase understates the reality: Many crimes have been decriminalized (shoplifting, for example), and most crime goes unreported, and most reported crime goes uninvestigated, and most investigated crime goes unsolved, and almost all solved crime merits derisory punishment. Yet the law-breaking is merely a symptom of a larger rupture. At a gathering like this one, John O’Sullivan, recalling his own hometown, said that when his grandmother ran a pub in the Liverpool docklands in the years around the First World War, there was only one occasion when someone swore in her presence. And he subsequently apologized.

“The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” But viewed from 2010 England the day before yesterday is an alternative universe

British society is the most civilized on the planet earth." Heigh-ho, he's just a sentimental Yankee

anglophile. But, recalling his own hometown, John O'Sullivan, one of the founding editors at the

National Post, said that when his grandmother ran a pub in the Liverpool docklands in the years around the First World War, there was only one occasion when someone swore in her presence. And he subsequently apologized.

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there," wrote L. P. Hartley in his famous

opening sentence to The Go-Between. But to read how the English themselves wrote of England the day before yesterday is to visit not a foreign country but an alternative universe.

New Criterion:

Last year, the “Secretary of State for Children” (both an Orwellian and Huxleyite office) announced that 20,000 “problem families” would be put under twenty-four-hour cctv supervision in their homes. As the Daily Express reported, “They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.” Orwell’s government “telescreen” in every home is close to being a reality, although even he would have dismissed as too obviously absurd a nanny state that literally polices your bedtime.

This month the “Secretary of State for Children” (another Orwellian touch) announced that 20,000 “problem families” would be put under 24-hour CCTV supervision in their homes. As the Daily Express reported, “They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.Orwell’s government “telescreen” in every home is close to being a reality, although even he might have dismissed as too obviously absurd a nanny state that literally polices your bedtime.

New Criterion:

For its worshippers, Big Government becomes a kind of religion: the state as church. After the London Tube bombings, Gordon Brown began mulling over the creation of what he called a “British equivalent of the U.S. Fourth of July,” a new national holiday to bolster British identity. The Labour Party think-tank, the Fabian Society, proposed that the new “British Day” should be July 5th, the day the National Health Service was created. Because the essence of contemporary British identity is waiting two years for a hip operation…. They can call it Dependence Day.

In a nanny state, big government becomes a kind of religion: the church as state… In Britain, after the Tube bombings, Gordon Brown began mulling over the creation of what he called a "British equivalent of the U.S. Fourth of July," a new national holiday to bolster British identity. The Labour party think-tank, the Fabian Society, proposed that the new "British Day" be July 5, the day the National Health Service was created. Because the essence of contemporary British identity is waiting two years for a hip operation.They can call it Dependence Day.

Monday, January 3, 2011

A week ago, Warren “took on” the Reformation, and concluded history would prove that progress (which, in the intervening centuries, might include things like universal suffrage, the abolition of slavery, women’s rights, industrialization, medical and scientific advance) was not just “buncombe”, but “hecatombs” (by which we assume he meant “a large-scale slaughter”, rather than “100 oxen”).This week, he follows it up with moremen in tights.Mostly green (although Warren’s “dyed in woad” would make Robin Hood’s costume blue.

Comparing the “gangster” in the ‘hood’ to Obama, Warren cites as an example of “criminal impulse” Obama's supposed “mis-quotation” of a Bible passage:

“Example, U.S. President Barack Obama is reported to be attending church again, and shows a ‘fresh start,’ by persistently misquoting from the Book of Genesis, chapter four. ‘I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper,’ he suggests it says. Check out the original. It is a scene in which no sisters appear, and the brothers in question are Cain and Abel”.

Perhaps Warren didn’t bother to “check out the original” presidential speeches. If he had, he would have noticed that Obama didn’t claim a Biblical reference. The references to Genesis 4:9 were made by commentators who Warren (once again) fails to cite. Perhaps it’s Warren in green tights doing some “redistributing” - of comments from Rush Limbaughandotherbloggers.

So it seems Warren “mis-quotes”. The President neither claimed, nor suggested, that Genesis 4 “says” "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper." Examples of Obama’s actual speeches show no mention of Genesis. Instead, he refers to Lincoln.

Obama:“But in the words of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, we also believe government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. (Applause.) We believe in a country that rewards hard work and responsibility; a country where we look after one another; a country where we say I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.”

But if Obama, who makes no mention of Genesis, is “persistently mis-quoting” the passage by adding the word “sister”, then many Christian leaders who specifically cite Genesis 4:9 with the word “sister” added are much more guilty of the “mis-quotation”. A few examples:

Rev. Richard Benson: “For the Catholic there can only be one response to Cain's question in the book of Genesis: ‘Am I my brother's (and sister's) keeper?’ Yes, absolutely, we are our sisters' and brothers' keeper”.

Bishop Eamonn Walsh: “for the Christian it is being free to be my brother’s and sister’s keeper”.

Deacon Keith Fournier: “we are our brother’s (and sister’s) keeper”.

Archbishop John Sentamu: “You are your brother's keeper. You are your sister's keeper”.

And Pope John-Paul II: “‘Am I my brother's keeper?’…When so many of our brothers and sisters are suffering, we cannot remain indifferent…the duty of governments and the international community remains essential... the building of peace through the establishment of solid structures... The United Nations Organization, for example…”

If Warren has a problem with these Christian teachings, he should take it up with the church he claims to represent, rather than mis-represent what the President said. In the 14th century world Warren seems to prefer, someone who contradicted church leaders would be burned as a heretic.

Sadly, Warren writes for the Ottawa Citizen, where his “sins” include repeated factual errors, the “failure to meet generally accepted journalistic standards”, and as the Ontario Press Council also recently concluded, “misusing the words or assertions of an unidentified author or spokesperson by failing to quote them fully and/or accurately”.

“We believe in a country that rewards hard work and responsibility. We believe in an America that invests in its future and its people, in the education of our children, in the skills of our workers. We believe in an America where we look after one another, where I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper. That’s the America we believe in. “

“But they also believed in a country that rewards hard work and rewards responsibility, and a country where we look after one another, where we say I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. They believed in that America”.

“I believe government should be lean and efficient. And that's why I've proposed a three-year spending freeze. That's why I set up a bipartisan fiscal commission to deal with our deficit, but in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, I also believe that government should do for the people what they can't do better for themselves. (Applause.) I believe in a country that rewards hard work and responsibility; a country where we look after one another; a country where I say I'm my brother's keeper, I'm my sister's keeper”.

“But the first Republican President, my favorite Republican, Abraham Lincoln -- (applause) -- here’s what he said about, government -- here’s what he said about government. He said, I believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. (Applause.) I believe in a country that rewards hard work and responsibility; a country where we look after one another; a country that says, I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper.”

“But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln—who, by the way, I’m not sure could win a nomination in the Republican Party right now—(laughter)—we also believe that government should be there to help people do what they cannot do better for themselves. That means we believe in a country that rewards hard work and responsibility, but also a country where we give each other a hand up, where we look after one another, where we say I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper. That’s the America I know.”

“But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln -- who, by the way, would have trouble getting a nomination in the Republican Party right now -- (applause) -- Honest Abe said that government should do for people what they cannot do better for themselves. (Applause.)So we believe in a country that rewards hard work and responsibility. We believe in a country that prizes innovation and entrepreneurship. But we also believe in a country where we look after one another; where we say, I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. That's the America I know”.

“But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln -- who, by the way, could not win the nomination of the Republican Party these days -- (laughter) -- we also believe that a government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. (Applause.) We believe in an America that rewards hard work and responsibility and individual initiative, but also an America that invests in its people and its future. An America that invests in the education of our children, in the skills of our workers. We believe in an America in which we look after one another; where I say I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper. (Applause.) That’s our vision. That's the America that I believe in and that Mark believes in, and that you believe in”.

September, 2010 Albuquerque speech cited by Rush Limbaugh:

“…the kind of life that I would want to lead -- being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”